Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 3 (2026)

Filing of motion; contents; motion for discovery; affidavit of factual innocence; expeditious review of motion

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 3. (a) A person seeking relief under this chapter shall file a motion in the court in which the conviction was entered, using the same caption and docket number as identified the underlying case.

(b) The motion shall include the following information, and when relevant, shall include specific references to the record in the underlying case or to affidavits that are filed in support of the motion that are signed by a person with personal knowledge of the factual basis of the motion:

(1) the name and a description of the requested forensic or scientific analysis;

(2) information demonstrating that the requested analysis is admissible as evidence in courts of the commonwealth;

(3) a description of the evidence or biological material that the moving party seeks to have analyzed or tested, including its location and chain of custody if known;

(4) information demonstrating that the analysis has the potential to result in evidence that is material to the moving party's identification as the perpetrator of the crime in the underlying case; and

(5) information demonstrating that the evidence or biological material has not been subjected to the requested analysis because:

(i) the requested analysis had not yet been developed at the time of the conviction;

(ii) the results of the requested analysis were not admissible in the courts of the commonwealth at the time of the conviction;

(iii) the moving party and the moving party's attorney were not aware of and did not have reason to be aware of the existence of the evidence or biological material at the time of the underlying case and conviction;

(iv) the moving party's attorney in the underlying case was aware at the time of the conviction of the existence of the evidence or biological material, the results of the requested analysis were admissible as evidence in courts of the commonwealth, a reasonably effective attorney would have sought the analysis and either the moving party's attorney failed to seek the analysis or the judge denied the request; or

(v) the evidence or biological material was otherwise unavailable at the time of the conviction.

(c) If the moving party is unable to include for filing with the motion any of the items or information described in subsection (b), or if the moving party lacks items or information necessary to establish any of the factors listed in subsection (b) of section 7, the moving party shall include a description of efforts made to obtain such items and information and may move for discovery of such items or information from the prosecuting attorney or any third party.

(d) The moving party shall file with the motion an affidavit stating that the moving party is factually innocent of the offense of conviction and that the requested forensic or scientific analysis will support the claim of innocence. A person who pleaded guilty or nolo contendere in the underlying case may file a motion. The court shall not find that identity was not or could not have been a material issue in the underlying case because of the plea. A person who is alleged to have, or admits to having, made a statement that is or could be incriminating may file a motion under this chapter. The court shall not find that identity was not or should not have been a material issue in the underlying case because the moving party made, or is alleged to have made, an incriminating statement. If the moving party entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to the offense of conviction or made an incriminating statement, the moving party shall state in the affidavit that the claim of factual innocence is made notwithstanding the plea or incriminating statement.

(e) The court shall expediously review all motions filed and shall dismiss, without prejudice, any such motion without a hearing if the court determines, based on the information contained in the motion, that the motion does not meet the requirements set forth in this section. The prosecuting attorney may provide a response to the motion, to assist the court in considering whether the motion meets the requirement under this section. The court shall notify the moving party and the prosecuting attorney as to whether the motion is sufficient to proceed under this chapter or is dismissed.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Wade, 5 N.E.3d 816 (Mass. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Wade, 5 N.E.3d 816 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 66× “On March 26, 2012, Wade filed a motion and affidavit pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 3 (§ 3 motion). The motion asserts that he is factually innocent of the crimes of murder and rape.”

Commonwealth v. Williams, 119 N.E.3d 1171 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 22× “G. L. c. 278A, § 3 ( b ) (4), ( d ). For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that he may.”

Commonwealth v. Clark, 34 N.E.3d 1 (Mass. 2015). · cites it 26× “See G. L. c. 278A, §§ 3, 6, 7; Wade, supra at 505 .”

Commonwealth v. Wade, 55 N.E.3d 409 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 14× “We conclude that because Wade has demonstrated that “the requested analysis had not yet been developed at the time of conviction,” G. L. c. 278A, § 3 (b) (5) (i), he has met the requirement of the act to establish one of the five enumerated reasons explaining why the requested…”

Commonwealth v. Donald, 8 N.E.3d 727 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 23× “38, Donald filed two motions pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 3 (§ 3 motions), again seeking the more sophisticated DNA testing.”

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 129 N.E.3d 841 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 7× “The Commonwealth argues, and the judge agreed, that Johnson is estopped from seeking forensic testing because his first chapter 278A motion to test the evidence collection kit was denied.”

Commonwealth v. Coutu, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “The Commonwealth also asserts that the defendant fails to satisfy G. L. c. 278A, § 3(A)(5), which is required under § 7(A)(3), *703 because a reasonably effective attorney would not have sought DNA analysis of the victim’s finger swabs.”

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 485 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 4× “1 She appeals from the denial of her postconviction motion, brought pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 3 (§ 3 motion), in which she *486 sought access to biological evidence for the purpose of conducting deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing.”

Jamison v. State, 148 A.3d 1267 (Md. 2016). · cites it 2× “); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 3 (2015); Miss.”

Jackson v. State, 139 A.3d 976 (Md. 2016). “15, § 2137 (2016); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 3 (2016); Mich.”

Commonwealth v. Putnam, 120 N.E.3d 295 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 5× “278A (chapter 278A), an individual seeking postconviction forensic testing must present certain information by way of motion.”

Commonwealth v. Cadet (Mass. 2026). · cites it 20× “See G. L. c. 278A, §§ 3 (b) (4), 6 (a). Concluding that the defendant did meet this initial requirement with respect to the requested DNA testing of the knife handles and bleach bottle, we reverse in part the denial of the defendant's motion and remand the matter for a hearing…”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 3(A)(5) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Coutu, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). “The Commonwealth also asserts that the defendant fails to satisfy G. L. c. 278A, § 3(A)(5), which is required under § 7(A)(3), *703 because a reasonably effective attorney would not have sought DNA analysis of the victim’s finger swabs.”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 3(b)(4) — 1 case

Putnam v. Alves (D. Mass. 2023).

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 3(b)(5)(iv) — 1 case

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 3(c) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 485 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). “1 She appeals from the denial of her postconviction motion, brought pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 3 (§ 3 motion), in which she *486 sought access to biological evidence for the purpose of conducting deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing.”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, § 3(d) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Wade, 5 N.E.3d 816 (Mass. 2014). “On March 26, 2012, Wade filed a motion and affidavit pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 3 (§ 3 motion). The motion asserts that he is factually innocent of the crimes of murder and rape.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.